Bringing Online Shopping Into the Future With the 3D Web 70
An anonymous reader writes "While there is now the possibility of using 3D in the browser over WebGL, it is still hard for regular web developers to get 3D content into websites without being hardcore graphics programmers. XML3D, a project at the Intel Visual Computing Institute, tries to tackle that problem by having a very easy-to-use language as an extension of HTML5. The goal is to standardize it with the W3C. There are already modified Firefox and Chrome browsers that support XML3D natively. At Intel's Research Blog you can find a video on what shopping at an online store could soon look like. In the example, the user purchases a DSLR that can be fully interacted with in 3D, including attaching various lenses and an external flash."
Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Note: I have never looked at or used VRML, so I have no idea what state it is in.)
It's in Missouri. [flagfox.net]
Re: (Score:1)
Actually that's *exactly* what XML3D is. You can think of it as the XHTML to VRML's "HTML4.0"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Woops, you're absolutely correct. That's exactly what I did. Good catch.
Sorry guys. I meant X3D. Fuck this "XML3D" noise.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. This adds nothing to VRML (Or any of the other dozen 3D web technologies that went under this same headline in years past.)
Okay, that's not entirely true. Over the past it has the following advantages:
- It's buit into the browser, so no plugins.
- Computers are much faster so performance should be better.
- Bandwidth is higher so files transfer faster.
But none of the gets to the heart of the problem with 3D:
- 3D artists are much more expensive than a production artist running Photoshop and creating attractive 3D content takes much longer than a flat image. This makes the content much more expensive to produce.
- The quality is not there. If you want to show off the highest quality vision of your product you want Photoshoped images. 3D just doesn't have it. Even with high resolution 3D scanners and hours of cleanup by a train artist it will still look sub-par compared to properly prepped 2D images.
- There are very few 3D interface designers worth a damn. And they're all working much higher paid jobs making games. That leaves people who sort of saw a scene in Jonny Mnemonic on late-night TV years ago when they were a little drunk, and thought it would be neat to make an interface like that. This turns away customers. And even if they did hire one of those great designers away from the games industry, 3D is still a horrible interface for a 2D spreadsheet, which is what most web sites are.
- Phones.
With the exception of the last, these problems will always exist, and always doom the 3D web.
The single case I've seen for 3D web in 20+ years of doing 3D are online 3D libraries like Thingiverse [thingiverse.com] where, in this case, you can preview an STL before downloading.
Disclosure: I have worked with web and 3D since 1996 and have been directly involved with a number of doomed 3D web projects in that time. They were all essentially identical with the exception of the name of the 3D plugin/file format.
Re: (Score:3)
- The quality is not there. If you want to show off the highest quality vision of your product you want Photoshoped images.
The shiniest polished image of a front side of a product helps me little if I as a customer want to actually look at the backside of the product. I would absolutely love it when Amazon or another major shop would start putting their products under a 3D scanner and allowing the user the actually view a product from all sides in 3D so that one can get a proper feel for the size, instead of just having an 2D image that really tell you much about anything. Apple had that a decade or so ago with QuickTime VR and
This is True, And Yet (Score:3)
What you're saying is true, but the example of Thingiverse rather points the way to solving the 3D artist problem: 3D scanners. One of the bottle necks in additive manufacturing is the need to design something in a CAD system before feeding it to the printer. And that's the same bottleneck you've pointed out for 3D websites. If you have a 3D scanner to generate a CAD file for an existing object, then no 3D artist time is required. Of course, in the case of a 3D printer you need to scan with X-rays to pi
Re: (Score:3)
Add to that: 3D brings in limitations from the real world. I worked with a project a few years ago that used a 3D interface for displaying pictures online. You could walk around a virtual art gallery with the pictures all on the walls. What was the difference between this and a simple page of pictures? Several things:
First, there was the issue of distortion. You had to stand directly in front of a picture to see it without distortion from perspective. Zooming was also harder - you could zoom in and o
VRML: The RIAA of the web (Score:2)
The whole concept of the 3D browser keeps popping up every year or two like bad RIAA-lobbied legislation, and with about as much success.
The simple fact of the matter is that while there are some vertical market needs for 3D technologies like being able to show a "virtual house" on a realtor's website, the expense of creating that 3D content DWARFS the expected benefits.
So what if I could take a 3D model of a camera and put virtual lenses on it in a virtual store using 3D web interfaces? How is that g
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I was going to say almost exactly the same thing.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Right example, WRONG conclusion!
All too often when I shop on Amazon, products won't have adequate pictures that allow me to see a product from all angles and zoom factors. Many products don't even bother to list full specs. Just today I was shopping for a new projector, but many of them don't list the supported connection types, so it would be nice to be able to rotate and zoom a 3D model of the projector and visually verify that it has what I need.
If {online retailer} can't be bothered to snap a few pictures with their camera phone and/or copy/paste the product specs, what makes you think they'll bother to obtain a full blown interactive 3d representation of the device? This is why this is doomed (for online shopping at least).
Newegg (my personal favorite retailer of electronic goods except for cables, which is then monoprice) already does nice 2d pictures with zoom support so you can zoom in and see what connections are there, and you can often make out the tiny little labels even. Sometimes, they also have a 360 degree view, which is really just a series of pics shot around the product, and a slider that lets you change the pictures in order via flash (but could easily be done in JS or HTML5 etc). There is very very very little benefit to a complete 3d model over these, and it's a lot more work, it's more expensive to produce, it's less compatible with existing browsers, it's higher bandwidth, and more difficult/complicated to use, and it will likely be lower resolution.
Still photos are by far the easiest thing for a retailer to add. Snap, and attach to the product profile. You're complaining (and I agree) that there aren't enough of these already... you're delusional if you think a 3d model will show up on all those products that don't even list the basic specs or more than one pic.
360 degree photos are also quite easy, especially for a big retailer that can setup one rig to do them (ex. a single camera, product on a lazy susan, spin it while shooting a movie or taking pics, paste result to 360 degree image maker or just make it a gif), and very few products have these even some of the best retailer sites.
3d online shopping - not going to happen. Stop expecting fancy new tech to solve operational issues that have simple solutions in place that aren't being used.
3d models on the manufacturer page - I can definitely imagine this showing up on high priced items.
Re: (Score:2)
At least for high production volume items (so not one-of Versache dresses)
it is completely plausible the manufacturers supplying 3d models as well
as imagery for their products. After all almost everything is computer
designed at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also completely plausible the manufacturers would provide hi-res** 2d images of each side of the device, but they don't.
The current deficiencies are easy to overcome. We don't need detailed 3d models to figure out if that port on the back of a projector is HDMI, Display Port, USB, eSATA, or memory stick (all similar dimensions that would be difficult to differentiate in a 3d model, but dead simple with just a camera phone quality image of the back of the damn thing, or a few lines of text).
I'm not agai
Re: (Score:3)
From there, the standard could mature into 360 views and maybe one day in my lifetime 3D. Baby steps
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you've thought this through.
1. As you said, it'd likely come from the marketing department. Look at any box or ad out there and it should be easy to see that they're not going to provide all the yes/no's needed to make an informed decision. Ex. Newegg nearly always has more info and pictures than the box the product arrives in, and sometimes they have more than the product manual.
2. This is one of the "features" that keep big retailers in power. Or, rather, the lack of mfr provided media. They
Re: (Score:3)
Until the 3D image is actually some sort of functional 3D projection, what's the point?
Quite so.
Today's 3d technology is not at a useful level. It's much like the video phones in 200A Space Odyssey. A cute "Sci-Fi" fad, but not a truly useful consumer technology.
Yet.
Much like the 3d televisions: A curious and half-assed implementation held back by the state of the technology, and of dubious value other than as a curiosity. If you're rich enough to by a 3d big-screen, why not? But otherwise, it's just not much of an experience.
The other point I want to touch on is this: For some reason, there
We've already seen this... (Score:4, Funny)
Spatula City already led this revolution, perhaps just a bit too far ahead of its time.
In the interest of understanding this better. (Score:1)
XML3D sounds intriguing. And since we all know that porn drives new technology, it is only logical that there must be a porn site that is using this technology. And for purely educational reasons, I was wondering if someone could post a porn site that is using XML3D - I have to actually see this technology in action to truly understand it.
Re: (Score:1)
Please show me the 2D LCD which has a viewing angle of 180x180 without (colour) distortion.
Re: (Score:2)
But LCDs are the most common 2D viewing technology today, and no one I know denies it the status of a valid 2D viewing technology just because you can't get a non-distorted image when looking from the side. The point being that the demand is ridiculously high.
Oh, and BTW, a hologram wouldn't be valid 3D according to his definition either because it lacks an eye tracking camera!
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever seen a hologram?
yay boo.com (Score:2)
All over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon to YOUR web browswer: (Score:2)
(You're welcome)
Re: (Score:1)
Switching to stamp collecting as new hobby.... (Score:2)
Egads!!
Goatse in Interactive 3D?
Spelunkers are now cringing in terror, you insensitive clod!
I liked it better when it was called X3D (Score:3)
Too much style without substance (Score:3)
full-body avatar (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm imagining online shopping for clothes, where your full-body avatar has all your dimensions and you get to see how clothes might look on you.
Re: (Score:2)
or a standardised scale for furniture, so you can compare how different sofas from different stores will look in your living room (of course, you already have the 3d house plan, from when you first viewed the house)
3d, a solution desparately in search of a problem (Score:3)
So... "look at this crap we want you to by... *look* at it! ooo..." [moves object fitfully in/out of visual plan]
Second Life tried this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh! Actually SL still exists, and is doing quite well as far as I can tell.
This would actually be perfect for a SL web shop.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh! Actually SL still exists, and is doing quite well as far as I can tell.
Probably not as well as Facebook, which given all the media hype it went through in its earliest stages is where the expectations were. It sounds like now that it's succeeding as a niche. Based on a quick search, it averages about a million active users. Linden Labs claims to be profitable, but they don't say by how much.
What does 3D have to do with online shopping? (Score:2)
Seems to me the story submitter has lost his common sense (if he ever had one). This connection is beyond stupid. First, online shopping is something that needs to reach the largest number of people possible, hence the technology needs to be simple and solid. 3D is an enemy of that. Then, people need to not spend too much time before they buy, as that decreases throughput. 3D is an enemy of that. And then, presenting things in 3D and while not adding any value whatsoever, this drives up the costs of doing b
Oh quit trying to sell us Shopping in 3D (Score:2)
They have been trying it for years, every time a new incarnation, every time a new failure... heck even the os use 3D for purely useless cosmetic effects... it is much simpler to use a regular catalog with clicks and stuff. unless technology changes radically beyond the browser level (like total immersion display ... which does not seem practical except maybe for gaming/ movies), this is not going to happen soon
boooring (Score:3)
Various incarnations of this have been tried for at least 10 years.
All of them miss the point. That it's not more visuals that is lacking from online shopping, but other senses. Feeling the weight and texture, touching something, getting the full experience.
It's like increasing the resolution on sports TV because you think too many people still go to the event instead of watching it at home. That decision was hardly ever because the picture was so small.
The real 3D web is here, but not for consumers. (Score:2)
Remember X3D? Didn't think so. X3D is VRML in XML syntax. It was supposed to put "3D on the web about a decade ago". There's also "Quicktime VR", which lets sites display a panorama, which can be either a move around the object or a view around the camera. A few real estate sites tried it. Didn't help much.
The real "3D on the Web" is in the industrial area. Companies from Asea Brown Boveri to Zummer are putting solid models of their products on the web. Not to look at, though. The models are for use wit
DRAGGING Online Shopping KICKING AND SCREAMING ... (Score:2)
... Into the Future.
There. Fixed that for you.